This content has been marked as final. Show 35 replies
I just built a new machine specifically for HDV editing using PPro CS3, and it has the Q6600 quad core on an Asus P5K mobo. Works great! HUGE improvement over my old P4 2.53 system.
CS3 utilizes the full capability of the quad, and during rendering or encoding it has all 4 processors working at 95-100% CPU utilization.
What I really want to know is, is there a big performance boost going to 4GB of RAM? I have 2gb now, and am running XP Pro 64-bit, so my system would see all 4GB. But I haven't been able to find anywhere if going to 4GB gives any increase in performance, esp. speed in encoding H.264 and rendering.
More RAM makes your whole system run more effiiciently when working with many applications at once.
I have 4GB.
you answered my exact question, that's *exactly* what I wanted to know, thanks for the information.
Strange thing is this, my local computer guy recommended the exact same motherboard you just bought, so this makes me feel great knowing
you bought the same board - this board seems to be very good at this point in time.
Good to know that CS3 utilizes all 4 processors.
On a side note,
I wonder why a dual core computer with 1 gig of ram, lost out in speed tests against an older 3.2 Ghz HT intel chip which had 2 gigs of memory )
I know that the old Intel HT chip technology was a "fake" dual core system, so perhaps this is why it beat a 1.6 ghz dual core system in a speed test.
In any event, this is great news, and thanks for posting.
As for the memory upgrade, I'd go out and buy that extra ram, and get the added benefit from it, you can't go wrong with 4Gb. On my last system, I bought 2 gigs, and now wished I had bought 4. Prices on ram these days are great, compared to several years ago too. Still expensive I must admit, but you don't have to sell the family car in order to afford the ram.
I also recommend the p5K but would suggest that you should look into getting at some SATA II drives to set up in a RAID as well. Rather than spend all that $$$ on a quad core chip I got a core 2 chip plus 4 SATA II drives and love it.
Perfect for HD editing (but not full uncompressed 4:4:4 stuff).
I recently built a quad core on the Asus P5K-E board. My P5B crashed with a faulty CPU seat. It's got 8Gb Ram running under Vista x64. CS3 literally flys but where the extra Ram stands out is in sharing with other applications like After Effects, Photoshop and other video related programs. Literally have half a dozen programs running concurrently without any noticeable affect.
8 g ram and a quad core with vista 64? That is sweet. How long to encode a 2 hour DVD with 2pass VBR?
>Rather than spend all that $$$ on a quad core chip
The Q6600 is less than $300 these days. Sufficient storage for editing will cost you several times that.
are you running Xp or Vista. I have Vista Ultimate, with a quad 6600, 4 gig of ram (not all is recognized), asus mobo, 3 500gbtye drives (no raid).
It works great, but I am now starting to see A LOT of blue screen crashes. I did not have this problem with cs2 (running on this machine), only cs3. don't know if its xp vs vista, or cs2 vs cs3.
Before you all go out and throw a party...
My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
2. 64bit XP is not supported.
3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
Here's the specs from Adobe:
- Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
- Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
- 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
you and your fancy words....
Yep Nelson, I think that's all been said before in this thread but if MS knew everything their O/s it would be trouble free. Hmmmm!!!
Like Melvin says sometimes they use specific words and I refer particularly to their statement about 64bit Vista (not supported). That simply means that Adobe is not yet happy with or completed their bench testing - no more, no less.
I'm part of that process with Adobe (Pacific) and we've just recently finished the third one hour doco using Vista x64 (Ultimate) and Adobe CS3 Production Premium and the only problem we've experienced is with Encore DVD and rendering. Prem Pro simply flies faultlessly which stands up well with current XP setups if you read this forum. Can't beat hands on for the ultimate test.
I understand and i'm gratified and encouraged to hear that some users have successfully installed and used CS3 on 64bit Xp and Vista.
I'm just saying that, since its not "supported", one could and should be disappointed if some or all things don't work out but not surprised and shocked if it does not.
My understanding is that currently, XP is still faster than Vista, 32bit or 64bit. And if your just looking for more memory capacity, I'd think you'd go with XP 64bit not Vista 64bit. Also, CS3 is still 32bit software so Vista 64bit would have to emulate it.
So why are you using Vista 64bit?
What does Vista 64bit do better than XP 64bit with respect to CS3?
In any case, it would be nice to see a CS3 speed comparison between XP/Vista 32bit and XP/Vista 64bit.
To be honest I have an advantage in that I am a filmmaker and also a journalist that writes for many video magazines and websites. Because I do so many video software evaluations I have two dedicated machines, one running XP 32bit and the other running Vista 64bit. Add two laptops to that equation and it gives me a good test bed for just about anything video.
I've been running Vista 64bit for three months with CS3 Production Premium and CS3 is also on the XP machine. Despite all the comment Vista 64 is streets ahead of XP in speed and reliability. Using Cineform on both setups and working exclusively in HDV (AVI) the render time on identical 28 minute timelines was reduced by almost 40% on Vista. Although the PC's are near identical the Vista machine has 8Gb RAM compared to 4Gb on XP (for obvious reasons) and the XP machine has an 8600GT card compared to the Vista 8500GT. But that's it. Both machines have 6600 Quads.
Many of you would know that with XP it is good practice to reboot every coffee break to clear memory. This is not the case with Vista, it just goes all day with one concession. XP slows down when it's feeling tired - Vista simply blue screens but this a lot to do with the 32bit software on a 64bit O/S.
Out of interest I started bench testing with Vista 32bit which literally crashed every 30 minutes. Not so with Vista 64.
I want to become a journalist and write for rags so i can get free sofware and hardware tooooo!
Where do i sign up? :)
Quote: "Despite all the comment Vista 64 is streets ahead of XP in speed and reliability". Well thats not what i've read. I've read that speed was less and reliability was about the same. But, then i have not looked into it for a few months now. I'll have to poke around again and see what folks are now saying since there have probably been a few critical update fixes sent out for vista by now.
I think its possible that most people having problems with vista 32 or 64bit are probably trying to run it on older systems not geared or optimized for vista.
Well its good to hear that some of you are having good experiences with Vista 64bit. I'm encouraged to buy vista 64bit and try it out.
How hard was it to find 64bit components to put into your 64bit vista machine?
BTW, do you post about your experience as a filmmaker somewhere? I'd like to ask you about it since i would like to produce my own stuff but have no experience other than reading other producers blogs about the horrors of getting involved with sharks and bad deals in the entertainment business.
>Vista machine has 8Gb RAM compared to 4Gb on XP
That could be a crucial factor. It would be more telling if you limited the physical memory on both machines to 2GB, and ran the same test with Vista and XP.
So far, most tests have XP as the faster OS, all else being equal. In your tests, all else is not equal, so it's hard for you to say that Vista is faster.
G'day Nelson and Jim,
Nelson, when you speak of components I guess you mean hardware? Even my old HP Laserjet 6p (14 years old) works with Vista. The only thing I had to replace was my 2 year old Canon scanner. Canon were too lousy to make a driver for it. Have a look at our website www.redgumtv.com.au for more information or one of my local mags at www.australasiancamcorder.info.
Jim, I think most people strive to get the best machine they can and adding RAM is one of the best and cheapest ways of doing that. XP is dated because it can't handle more than 4Gb. Vista can handle 8Gb so if no other reason video editors should be encouraged to use the best tool.
There are challenges with Vista, especially Vista x32, but I haven't found those greater than when XP was released (that doesn't excuse Microsoft for not getting it right). I don't think you should compare machines or software on the basis of size but rather on value. The build cost of my machines was only $150 different.
>XP is dated because it can't handle more than 4Gb. Vista can handle 8Gb
32 bit XP can handle up to 4GB. 32 bit Vista can handle up to 4GB. 64 bit XP can handle up to 128GB. 64 bit Vista can handle up to 128GB. There is no difference between each OS as to how much memory they can handle.
The rest of your post seems non sequitur to me. I don't see how any of it applies to proper testing methods, which was the point of my post.
Sure Jim, most of us understand the memory capability of the various O/Ss. We've got a little over 200,000 readers who we survey frequently. Factual bench testing is of interest to less than 5%. Like our readers, most on this forum are interested in base standards for their PC in relation to the software and how to maximise their output at minimal cost.
I'm simply countering the negative and saying for a small outlay use Vista x64 and increase your Ram and you get remarkable results compared to XP x32 that most currently use now. Sure, you could go to XP x64 but Vista x64 is a much more sophisticated O/S in many respects.
As you witness from this thread and others the majority are basing their Vista comments on hearsay - they haven't tried it yet - I'm just stating a reality based on my work experience.
BTW: How would you define "proper testing" Jim? The way we test is driven by consumer demand based on cost. Simply put, that means we build two units of the same value and run a comparison test. You saw the results earlier. The difference was spectacular as were the other results like video playback, HD video output to monitor, multi-tasking through bridge and so on.
>for a small outlay use Vista x64 and increase your Ram and you get remarkable results compared to XP x32 that most currently use now.
That may be a valid point, but it's not what you said. You said "Despite all the comment Vista 64 is streets ahead of XP in speed..." I don't believe that point has been supported yet. And indeed all the proper benchmarks I've seen say just the opposite - Vista performs worse than XP, for encoding, for games, etc.
>How would you define "proper testing" Jim?
For an OS comparison, you can either build two identical machines (not just similar, or comparable value) and load a comparable OS onto each (32 vs. 32, or 64 vs. 64), or you can use the same machine twice, wiping the hard drive and installing each OS in turn. The point here is that the OS MUST be the only thing that changes if you are to measure the difference between them.
I have recently aquired a Dell PowerEdge 8450 for my video editing and would like to use Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5. The machine was running 2000 Advanced Server, which will not allow me to use Premiere. The machine has four PIII Xeon 700 Mhz processors (it has room for four more processors = 8) and 8 Gigs of ECC Ram (it has room for 32 Gigs).
What OS can I run that will allow me to utilize this machines resources and use my Premiere Pro?
Thanks in advance,
Can't have it both ways. XP 32 bit is required for 1.5 to run, and either XP or Vista 64 bit is required to take advantage of the machine's resources.
reference the announcement adobe made recently that the next ver of PS will be supported on Vista 64. They did nto mention support on XP64.
Why would you want/need to run Premiere Pro 1.5 in April 2008? It is several years old. My advice is to upgrade to Premier Pro CS3 and take full advantage of your OLD xeon techology. Run a 64-bit OS as well.
what would be a good reason to upgrade from premiere 2.0 and encore dvd 2.0 to cs3? what are the hands on advantages? I haven't seen a need for myself yet. Aside from peoples personally likes/dislikes between the two (which I'm curious to hear) what are these specific differences?
Is the DVD burning better (as in more options or easier work flow)?
is the rendering faster/better quality/any difference?
Is there a speed difference? I tried running the demo of premiere cs3 and it seemed to run a little chunkier.
Any work flow features in Encore or Premiere cs3 that are cool?
Also, in regards to Vista vs XP will 2.0 work on Vista?
Oh and this may be a bit newbie, will quad core work with XP 32bit?
> Is the DVD burning better (as in more options or easier work flow)?
> Any work flow features in Encore or Premiere cs3 that are cool?
CS3 intergrates Encore much smoother sicne Encore comes with Premiere.
> is the rendering faster/better quality/any difference?
> Is there a speed difference?
> Oh and this may be a bit newbie, will quad core work with XP 32bit?
Much faster! Especially with a quad core... much faster
> Also, in regards to Vista vs XP will 2.0 work on Vista?
Touch and go. Stick to XP Pro for now, it is fast.
any performance difference between xp home and pro? I'm using home now with premiere 2.0 - that would work fine with quad core right? 32bit is fine for quad core right?
XP has more features than home but both handle multi-core processors. Likewise, both a 32bit and a 64bit system will work fine with a quad core. The 64bit system will perform better.
But, the 64 bit could preset other issues which may be difficult, or at best troublesome, to resolve. If you're not a computer guru, the 32 bit XP is probably the best choice.
I'm not afraid of some driver issues with other things if that's what you mean. I just want the os that's going to run the fastest (with premiere) and be the most stable. Does any one have a clear cut answer on this: What's faster with CS3? Vista or XP 32?
> I just want the os that's going to run the fastest (with premiere) and be the most stable
XP Pro with SP3 (coming soon)...
Not sure which is faster between xp and vista... my xp is lean mean and lightning fast.
What about LINUX, does it runs well with Premiere CS3?
>What about LINUX, does it runs well with Premiere CS3?
Equally well as AmigaOS and TOS. :p